Ghost Towns Is the First 8K Video Posted To YouTube -- But Can You Watch It?

Iddo Genuth writes: 4K videos and movies are still far from common and now 8K seems to start making its appearance online. A few days ago, what might be the first 8K video entitled "Ghost Towns" was published on Youtube and you can now watch it for yourself in its full 7680 × 4320 pixel glory — that is if you happen to have access to a 8K display (or projector).

The video was created by cinematographer Luke Neumann who used a 6K EPIC DRAGON camera using some advanced and complex techniques such as shooting in portrait orientation and then stitched the video together in Adobe After Effects. Some shots simply scaled up by 125% from 6.1K to meet the 7.6K standard and handheld stuff was 6K scaled up by 125% and sharpened up.

Youtube is now offering an 8K option and according to Google: "8K video has been supported since 2010, but that labeling for 8K video (the 4320p/8K quality setting like pictured above) was added "earlier this year — but presumably there was noting to view — until now...

Comments

Slashdotters

[ckatko]

I love that Slashdotters are all about VR, but "nobody can see 4K" and "there's no point in going above that."

Meanwhile, their 1080p 5" phone has a dot pitch 10 times their 1080p TV and they don't go "man, I wish the screen was lower resolution."

They sure have a fickle love of new technology.

Re:Slashdotters

[AmiMoJo]

It's worth noting that this video is only 8k resolution, but it's not what the eventual 8k broadcast standard will be. That requires a higher frame rate and higher colour depth as well. Same with 4k, it's more than just a resolution bump and most cheap 4k equipment is only HD with more resolution.

Re:Slashdotters

[zerosomething]

Ugh that makes my network hurt.

Re:Slashdotters

[David_Hart]

It's worth noting that this video is only 8k resolution, but it's not what the eventual 8k broadcast standard will be. That requires a higher frame rate and higher colour depth as well. Same with 4k, it's more than just a resolution bump and most cheap 4k equipment is only HD with more resolution.

Not only that, but the majority of the content is upscaled from 6K (whether using upscaling or stitching). It's cool and all that he spent the time and effort to do this, but, in my opinion, it's not true 8K until it's native video. Red has a 6K camera that can be upgraded with an 8K sensor.

Re:Slashdotters

[oldmac31310]

If he has a 50 foot TV then, well he should build a model of Stonehenge to house the behemoth - just make sure to write down the instructions correctly on the paper napkin.

Support since 2010

[Anonymous Coward]

8K video has been supported since 2010

2010 was when I clicked on the play button. It's still buffering.

Re:Support since 2010

[Stele]

I clicked on it and it's working for me (300Mps fiber helps).

But the video quality looks like crap on my 2010 MacBook Pro. Clearly 8K technology is not quite ready for prime time.

Re:Support since 2010

[Just Some Guy]

But the video quality looks like crap on my 2010 MacBook Pro.

That's because your MBP has a hard disk drive that adds a lot of harsh harmonics to the signal. People who actually care about their video viewing use SSDs, which have straighter 1's and rounder, more organic 0's that improve depth of field and staging.

I predict ...

[gstoddart]

I predict zero consumer demand for this.

HD was a moving target for years, and early adopters eventually got screwed as their gear no longer worked.

The movie studios dickered over the HD replacement for DVD.

If they think we're going to buy new TVs and the like every time someone makes it bigger, they're sorely mistaken.

I'm sure it will be beautiful and wonderful, and people with lots of money will rush to run out and drop thousands of dollars on new gear so they can brag to their friends.

And the overwhelming majority of household consumers will yawn, scratch their asses, and wonder what the hell is in it for them.

I find myself with zero motivation to replace any of my TV/stereo stuff just because someone has said "fuck it, we're going to 8K".

But suddenly it seems like every 2-3 years people believe we'll all swap out our existing stuff just because some filmmaker decided to use it.

This will be mostly a non-existent technology for most people.

Re:Why the switch in nomenclature?

[vux984]

But I'm curious as to why they'd change naming conventions. Is there any particular reason?

Short answer:

Because people in marketing are catastrophic idiots.

Longer answer:

This is the graphic to look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

4K UHD has nothing to do with horizontal resoution. 4K is because its exactly 4 x 1080p tiled 2 by 2. (see how the FHD fits exactly 4x into UHD).

So 4K UHD is 4x1080p =~> 4K

By sheer coincidence 4K UHD at 3840x2160 which is sort of close to 4k horizontally 3840 ~= 4000 so lots of people thought it meant horizontal resolution rather than 4 x 1080p. To further confuse the issue there actually is a DCI 4K resolution 4096x2160 which *IS* named 4K for the horizontal resolution, which is actually 4K (4096 is 4k in binary of course).

Then when it came time to make the next standard, they did the samething as the did to make 4K. They just tiled a 4K screen 2x2. (Again see how 8K UHD is exaclty one quadrant of 8K... )... so 8K is 4 x 4K tiled 2x2 or 16 x 1080p tiled 4x4... but by then most people including the dipshits in marketing thought the 4K was the approximate horizontal resolution, so they called it 8K UHD. because 7860 is ~= 8000.

There are some other resolution standards in the 8K family that are derived from the DCI 4K... so they actually have 8192 pixels horizontally... well most of them anyway. 8K "21:9" keeps the vertical fixed and expands the horizontal out to 10,240... because why not. (I mean, I get it... but then 16:10 should have just varied the vertical and kept the horitontal... but that's 8192x5120... which isn't really consistent with anything.

Only 8k?

[jimmydigital]

Wake me up when it goes to 11k and the black levels can be none more black.